beta
Text
1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C:
A. Three floors from among the buildings indicated in the attachment real estate.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Selection C are co-owners of the buildings listed in the attached Table; the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 1, 2017, which provides that deposit deposit amounting to KRW 20 million and monthly rent shall be KRW 1.4 million; and the rent and water fee for the month pushed down from 2016 shall be borne by the Defendant; however, even if the Defendant did not pay the rent after the conclusion of the instant contract, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff sent a certificate of the content that the contract was terminated on the ground of the rent as of September 20, 2017, and that the above content certification has been delivered to the Defendant on the day of the same month.
Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 22, 2017, which received the Defendant’s certificate of content.
However, since the Plaintiff deducted KRW 21,031,350, which is the sum of monthly rent and water supply charges for the month sealed in 2016, and the monthly rent that was not paid until October 31, 2017 after the conclusion of the contract, from the rental deposit, the Plaintiff did not have any security deposit to be returned to the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant building, and the designated co-owner of the instant building, to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,400,00 per month from November 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, as damages arising from illegal occupation or illegal occupation.
The Defendant asserts to the effect that since the Defendant paid KRW 80 million as premium at the time of leasing the instant building, it should be guaranteed an opportunity to receive the premium.
(b).